RD:
you are right. However if you keep your attention on the helicopter it is nothing to worry. The main difference is a more lively helicopter in winds and a steeper decend angle in an auto.
As you mentioned that is in most any float equiped helo.
Lu:
a) You headlined your previous post with something about interpretation....
b) As to the certification demo requirements: What do they have to do with the recommendations in the POH? The R44/22 are perfectly capable of doing both things. It just was recommended to avoid this in everyday flying. As a matter of fact I just learned, that the R22 was flown at about 50 kts sideways!! to demonstrate that there aren't any bad loss of T/R effectivness issues at any point! Robinson doesn't recommend to do this on a daily basis however!
c) There are a lot of certification tests that do not enter the POH as a limit: Also just learned, that anything that the helicopter is supposed to be able to do at VNe is actually tested at VNe+10%!
On the R22 there was a particular requirement to overspeed the Rrpm to 116% which was not possible to do at Vne+10% so it was flown to 150 mph!! (in a slight dive) and then the cyclic went aft to flare enough to do the 116% at VNE+!!
That is way beyond anything I would have considered sane on a R22. BUT of course that is done by pilots that are a grade or two above the guy who flies 30-50 hrs in a year (and has to be considered when writing the POH...).
It is mainly not to keep you from running into the limits of the machine, but keeping you from running into your OWN limits! The closer you fly the helicopter to its limits the more refined you have to be, and the factory has to cut a line somewhere - if everyone would be a "Rich Lee" or "Nick L." we would need no POH's.
You agree?
I would hate to learn that Bell, EC, MD, Sikorsky or any other company just tested to the POH limits and not WAY beyond!
I assume that the recommmendations regarding sideslips and out of trim flight are the same from all the manufactures and are taught as a self-understanding matter on any factory checkout. This is normally also taught in any decent flight school.
No blame on Robinson to point it out in the POH - I still encounter hightime pilots who have no concept of trimmed flight! Coming from all and any brand.
d) Lu, I know your credencials from this forum and you are welcome to make as many comments on helicopters as you wish! Generally I enjoy them until I (or is it you?) get lost in your explanations....
I just refuse to discuse helicopter piloting issues with someone who only has (or has not...) THEORETICAL knowledge about it.
No offense Lu, I was there too. BEFORE I started to actually take flight lessons I read everything about it and thought I KNEW everything about it - WAKE UP: Until you actually control a helicopter by yourself you have NO IDEA about it AT ALL!
All the theory suddenly changes its face!!
So excuse me, but some "issues" you bring up make completely no sense from a pilots view (though I grant it might from a non-pilots view....), ... then this is a P-Pilot-RuNe.
I have been flying with plenty of Tuna skippers that have around 12000 hrs of helicopter time sitting on the other seat as observers, going through all kinds of interesting maneuvers and they all think they could land the helicopter if they had to. I put in the duals and let them GO at it. ALL of them would have been dead in less then 10 sec if I let them KEEP at it!
Again, no offense, but until you fly one yourself (got to hover, past the solo x-country, do all the basics...) you don't know jack about (flying) it.
Going for cover!
3top
Back again,
with some rumours out of the course:
a) definitely no changes on the R-22 (hydraulics or so...). It was taken about as far as it goes and except for minor cosmetic things there is nothing to be expected. Stainless M/R blades are still not possible for weight issues.
b) R-66?: Nothing on the board (or PC) yet, but concepts/ideas/solutions are contemplated. You got an idea? Mail it to them!
The issue:
# A 5-place helicopter with the growth potential towards a 7-place via the same concept that was used for the R-22/44 ("Stick a straw in it and blow it up!", Tim Tucker's words!)
# Include a baggage compartment to fit two sets of golf clubs.
# Do it for half the price of the competition!
This is where the powerplant question comes in. With present turbine prices, this is not possible.
Any ideas? Frank will supposedly listen to any reasonable idea! By the way, 300 hp will not be enough!
My 2 cents: TWO Zoche-aero-diesels, once if ever, they become available!
c) The crash of the R-44 in Jakarta (settling with power onto the roof top of a hotel and then fall into the pool): Most likely the pilot held the collective all the way up even after impact, which caused the helicopter to keep on sliding and then dynamic roll over the side.
This is no finger pointing at the poor guy (3000 hrs commercial), but analysis suggested at the Safety course. Probably he had his heart still stuck in the throat from just getting onto the roof top while in a settling with power. Just did not get to slam the damn thing (collective) down, once on the platform. It looked like the helicopter LIFTED of the ground after it caught the skid.
d) From a previous question on this thread:
Lu, if Robinson had to certify the R-44 today, the one problem they would have is with the seat impact crash worthiness (as would most all light US helicopters on the market). They received the Typ certificate in December 92 and Rules where changed in Jan 93.
They probably would have to redesign the landing gear to absorb a higher g-load, compared to their present standard, which isn't bad in the first place......
Anyway, nothing to do with 18 degrees.....
3top